Nabeel you may be right. Its funny I just realized this. I have the Stones Edtion of the Tanak. I just recently went throught every place where the NT, quotes Old Testment prophesies to Christ. And every place it says in the NT "LORD" it says HASHEM in the old testment. I then looked up the Hebrew for YWYH, and actauly underlined it in the hebrew portion of the Tanak.Anyway I thought that was the coolist thing.

I think it would be good to debate Nabeel on this. I also think it would be good to debate Mary Jo on Pagan-Myth Theory. I'd like to see some women get involved on both sides of the debate eventually. I'd like to see Mary Jo do two or three debates, then a Muslim woman do a few debates with Christian debaters, then the women debate each other, and so on.

I am working on a blog post about the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). I think it will be ready before the month is over, Adonai willing. I can keep you posted if you are interested in the topic. My hope is that it can help point people in the right direction to further studies on this topic.

I'll email you about this here in the near future... glad you're willing to debate some more, though, and especially that you're willing to debate Mary Jo. I think it would be great to see a Muslim debate a woman. This would break some of the traditional barriers that exist in the minds of the public (e.g. women don't debate, muslim men wont converse intelligently with women, etc.) This will be good :-)

You said that we do not worship the flesh of Jesus. I'm not quite sure if this is correct. In isn't the human nature of Jesus now part of the identity of YHWH? It would seem problematic to say that there is something that belongs to the identity of God that we don't worship. And in any case, Jesus was a single, unified person (the hypostatic union of two natures). In so far as we worship Jesus, aren't we worshiping his human nature as well? However, I do think that I can see why you stated your position the way you did in order to avoid a common Muslim misunderstanding.

I know this is a way off demand, butt coulde you please gibe some examples about whate you saide aboute the fact that where the NT referring to Jesus as "Lord" quoting the OT, this one (the OT) in hebrew used "hashem"... and in your opinion, whate might this mean? (beyond the obvious...)

This was a good debate. Farhan is easily someone who commands our respect. The question that I believe Farhan needs to grapple with is to what degree does reasoning and evidence trump faith. He places his faith above all reasoning and evidences. So bringing historical evidences for the deity of Christ automatically falls on deaf ears because his faith simply won't allow it. When dealing with Farhan it is imperative that you focus on showing the inconsistency of his worldview. That, I think, is the only way to reach him.

Actually the only two Pre-Christian Gods who died and rose again that I know of are

The Thracian god Zalmoxis (also called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis), who is described in the mid-5th-century B.C.E. by Herodotus (4.94-96), and also mentioned in Plato's Charmides (156d-158b) in the early-4th-century B.C.E. According to the hostile account of Greek informants, Zalmoxis buried himself alive, telling his followers he would be resurrected in three years, but he merely resided in a hidden dwelling all that time. His inevitable "resurrection" led to his deification, and a religion surrounding him, which preached heavenly immortality for believers, persisted for centuries.

And Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion, resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E., attesting to a very old tradition.

Just some rectifications in your accounts (and I'll not make mention to the ebident -- ipsis verbis -- paraleles between your words and those off the descredited works of the atheist Richard Carrier in his critic off the eben more descredited Kersey Graves...) of dead "deities" who ressurrected...

1) Zalmoxis dis not die: he forged his dead... nothing to do withe Jesus account (except in the qur'an's form);

2) the deification off Zalmoxis (as you said) was nott by considering himself a trully and proper God, because after his reenacted "ressurection" he died again... nothing to do withe Jesus account (not eben in the qur'an's form);

3) Ishtar was not crucified... you cannot use a technical word for an action reported to habe existed 900 years before the first "crucifixions" began to exist... yes, other people were tied or nailed to a wooden structure, but not in the shape off a cross ("crucis" in latin)... don't make the same mistakes others do...

4) Ishtar also died again after her revitalization (not ressurrection... iff you understand the difference...): she did not passed entirely to God, but resumed her antient life...

5) as far as I know, Ishtar's nailling to the cross did not have nothing to do with her descend and escape from the underworld... this latter action happened with her still alive and in order to get her lover from the underworld...

Hi Ehteshaam,J. P. Holding has a great site, where he goes through basically all of the pagan-copycat-aguments. You may not like the tone, but I recommend to check it out. You get the idea what burden you shoulder when you make claims as these.

Nabeel,at 4:10 in the second rebuttal, you said something like "I'm quoting Hurtado not because he's an evangelical christian like us, he's a scholar who does not espouse this opinion."

Do you mean "This is what Hurtado believes due to scholarly inquiry, it's not based on his religious presuppositions." or "Hurtado is not a christian"? I tend to give the first interpretation more credibility. A non-christian would hardly write a scholarly tome arguing that the earliest christology was already as high as today.

I don't think I'd categorize Hurtado as an evengelical Christian, specifically because of his Christology. From what I read, he considers Jesus either a second God or a slightly lesser God. It's hard to tease out his opinion because he never explicitly says it. He focuses more on the actions of the early Christians and how they must have honored Jesus.

But I may be wrong about all this, so before I say more, I'm going to look for quotations from Hurtado and post them here (as long as I don't forget! Forgive me and remind me if I do, I'm in the middle of preparing for graduation.)

mmmm I dont know David, do you think its a good idea to let a shis muslim to post your debates what are Sunni Muslims gonna say now, its like asking a Mormon to host your videos,Well, he's not really hosting them for us, he gave us his account. He said: "Feel free to take the account off me, I doubt i'll be using it again and it is just a waste of an account." Again, big thanks to him!

You said that we do not worship the flesh of Jesus. I'm not quite sure if this is correct. In isn't the human nature of Jesus now part of the identity of YHWH?Here's what I'm saying: we don't worship created flesh. We worship Jesus because He is God come to Earth. In as much as his flesh is a part of Him, then one may feel free to worship it.

But this is like me saying "I love my school, and therefore I love the bricks they used to build the school building." The brick is not what causes me to love the school, and I only love it to the extent that it represents something else which I love.

Similarly, I worship my Lord and Creator. I would only worship his flesh as a representation of Him, but I do not do so because I have no need to do so when I can just worship Him directly.

I think Haecceitas is correct. As far I understand the doctrine, humanity is now folded into the Godhead. The second person of the trinity now has a body. He will have that body forever. I don't think we can separate the the spirit from the flesh as Farhan is trying to do. We worship the whole person of Jesus, flesh included. I don't think its either or.

I think there is a difference between Christ's flesh before and after the resurrection.

Christ's flesh before the resurrection was weak, and limited.

Following the resurrection, it was glorified, indestructable, and powerful.

The resurrection basically uplifted the human flesh into divine glory.

It is God's Spiritual essence that made the flesh powerful, not the other way around.

On the other hand, it was Christ's shed blood, that was acceptable before God as a perfect sacrifice for our redemption.

Why was it the perfect sacrifice ? I don't think we could say because of some kind of physical superiority in the blood, but rather because the person (Christ) who shed the blood had the Divine essence of God, being sinless and perfect.

We worship Christ because He is God. He took the flesh upon Himself, and raised up that flesh in glory.

in my opinion, you didn't proof yourself 'worthy' to be debated again. considering your last debate where you primarily used ‘arguments’ from Richard Carrier. Besides copying arguments you didn’t present a historical case nor any convincing arguments. Btw to claim that historicity agree with you on denying a supernatural event isn’t persuasive. Cause most historicity would agree with us that Muhammad never met Jbreel. Consider this to be a small lesson called consistency

Rafa-el : What I find strange is that ethesaam would even dare to cite Carrier, because Carrier actually believes that Jesus never existed, God doesn't exist, and miracles do not exist.

It is strange indeed that he would appeal to his works. I guess however, it is a confirmation of what we have been saying for a very long time. That muslims will use ANYTHING to try to bolster their case, even if it totally contradicts their own position.

Actually Rafa-el-- do one thing, you debate Richard Carrier. Contact him here: http://www.richardcarrier.info/debates.html

Debate any of these topics:

Did Jesus really exist? Did the Ressurection really happen? Is the N.T. trustworthy?

And see how you do. If you provide one good arguement for your faith, then I will convert to Christianity and change my website from answering-christian-claims.com to answering-muslim-claims.com.

Okay, I might not be the greatest debater in the world and David Wood clearly beat me last time, but at least I was willing to debate my beliefs. At least I had the courage to engage in a public debate. Let's see you do the same.

Royal Son: Nice website, I checked out briefly. When I have more time I will comment. The reason why I use Carrier is because he does good scholarship-- I really don't care what he believes in-- as long as I think the material is good-- I will use it. No offense to you though, Royal Son. You and Semper are actually the only two people I don't have any problems with here.

Rafa-el_1 says: That is exactly my point. Why should David, Nabeel or any of us consider debating you if we can go to the root of your argument namely Carrier himself. You are just copying árguments’.

Ethesaam said:Debate any of these topics:

Did Jesus really exist? Did the Ressurection really happen? Is the N.T. trustworthy? Rafa-el_ 1 says:To debate a topic such as : Did jesus ever existed? Is equivalent as debating : Is the earth actually round ? none serious scholar holds to the vieuw that jesus never existed. There is to much histyorical data and philosophical reasons to deny it ( how did Christianity got started without Christ etc)Considering the debate topic: Did the Ressurection really happen?It’s a supernatural event .where as Richard doesn’t believe in God he doesn’t believe in supernatural events. But I believe that Richard pretty much debated this topic when he debated William lane craig on the topic : Does God exist?( Richard admitted defeat on his website concerning this debate) I comment the reading of Gary Habermas on this subject.BTW: we can’t proof supernatural events by empirical evidence and neither can you! So to be consistency I would like to make the same challenge to you: Can you proof to us that Muhammad met the angel Jbreel and not a demon?

Eteshaam said:And see how you do. If you provide one good arguement for your faith, then I will convert to Christianity and change my website from answering-christian-claims.com to answering-muslim-claims.com.

Rafa-el_1 says:It would be wonderful to see you become a Christian yet it isn’t my duty to pursue you. Christians are commanded to offer explanation as to why the believe ( tim 3:16) But only the Holy spirit can convince a soul. That being said I am more than happy to refute all you allegation toward the Christian faith.

Ethesaam said:Okay, I might not be the greatest debater in the world and David Wood clearly beat me

Rafa-el_1 says:Admitting to defeat is a humble and noble thing to do. Yet the reason behind your lost don’t have anything to do with your poor debating skills.Its a matter of truth against Falsehood

Etheshaam said:last time, but at least I was willing to debate my beliefs. At least I had the courage to engage in a public debate. Let's see you do the same.

Rafa-el_1 says:You were willing to debate your beliefs? Your arguments where sully based on biblical scripture. You debated a Christian topic! You are not prepared to debate the Qur’án nore Muhammad.

Btw: I have debated in public , the difference between you and me is that I was willing to debate and defend my religion. You are not!

Ehteshaam Gulam said: «Debate (...) Did Jesus really exist?»... looooooooool.... looooooooooool... how can someone give credit to someone who has any doubt in this subject... maybe it's the so called psychological defense mechanism of transference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html

Talking about Jesus human flesh, well, I believe Jesus was rise in a glorifies body. So, Jesus left His flesh and blood. That glorifies body is that original body (here I am not talking about a body in human term) of Jesus as The Word of God, The Uncreated, Unseparated from One God Essence/Being.

Its absurd to thing that Jesus human flesh was glorifies and was with God after His ressurection. It is like adding another body to Jesus and it became: The Father + The Son (+ His glorifies flesh) + The Holy Spirit. Three Persors + a glorifies body of One God Being. Sound to me a NEW GOD in the making.

==> Your scriptural quotation is correct but I do not agree your interpretation. How on earth a created being is part of God. You just can't say that God wanted it, God say so. God cannot in conflit with His essence, person & attribute. All must in agreement. That make Him a Perfect God.

God cannot make a flesh and say that, that flesh is part of me now. Nonsense. A created being cannot share God being. That why, The incarnated Word, Jesus is One Person of Two Nature, God & Human. Nature DON'T MIX. BEFORE, THE WORD WITHOUT THE HUMAN NATURE, ON EARTH, THE NATURE DON'T MIX, AFTER, THE NATURE ALSO DON'T MIX. What does GLORIFY MEAN? Well, lets give your opinion.

Unless I see you engage in a debate and unless I see really good evidence for Christianity (which there is none), you really don't have grounds to critize me.

If you believe athiests are wrong about the existence of Jesus-- then debate it. Or the alleged resurrection of Christ or the reliablity of the gospels of the N.T. Or do any other topic relating to the evidence of Christianity.

My point is not winning or losing against Richard Carrier or others its merely having the courage to do a debate. Okay, I clearly lost the debate against Mr.Wood but does not mean Islam is invaild? Absoultely not-- it just means that I didn't have much experience in doing debates.

Set up any debate topic relating to any of the alleged evidence for Christianity. Again, If you provide one good piece of evidence for Christianity (which I highly doubt you'll be able to do) but by some miracle if you do so, I will convert to Christianity, close down my site and become a Christian and will use my spare time and money refuting Muslim Apologists. I'll be waiting.

As for me using Richard Carrier material-- I will Use the best scholarship (Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Keith Parsons, Albert Schweitzer, etc, etc) possible regardless of whether its source is Muslim, Christian or otherwise — will be used to spread and defend Islam against critics.

Cosmic Boy - No I do not believe we worship imperishable flesh. I believe we worship Jesus Christ, the person.

Here are the verses I had in mind regarding the body that undergoes resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:42-43

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

I don't believe we worship Christ's flesh which is raised in glory.

I don't believe we worship Jesus' resurrected flesh, nor will we worship our own resurrected flesh.

Cosmic Boy : I never believed that Jesus had only one nature. I apologise if my words ever came across as implying as such. When I referred to the glorified flesh of Jesus, I wasn't referring to worshipping His flesh, I was referring to the fact that it is raised up in power and glory as per 1 Corinthians 15:43. That's all I intended to put across.

==> Well, is the whole context talking about worshiping Jesus glorify body? I don't think so. I want to stress that we don't have many verses about Jesus glorify body. And if we have (maybe 1 or 2) that verses is very unclear and we need to be very careful how we interpretate.

Im in the opinion that Jesus took back what He lay during His "kenosis". Can you agree with that?

But I also have some problem with the resurrected Lord, His body seem to me like what He did when He visited Abraham. He took it (for a purpose) and then lay if off (when He fulfiled His purpose). Can you agree with that?

Unless I see you engage in a debate and unless I see really good evidence for Christianity (which there is none), you really don't have grounds to critize me.

Rafael says:

My critique wasn’t based on your poor performance nor the total lack off persuasive arguments. My critique was based on the inconsistent view you held during the debate (using atheist arguments when being a theist)To make the claim that there is no good evidence for Christianity should require a knowledge of all used arguments for Christianity. By only reading ATHEIST authors I doubt you ever engage real Christian apologetics or scholarship regarding the issue. So you statement is mostly based on ignorance.

Eteshaam said:If you believe athiests are wrong about the existence of Jesus-- then debate it. Or the alleged resurrection of Christ or the reliablity of the gospels of the N.T. Or do any other topic relating to the evidence of Christianity.

Rafael says:Here you go again. Don’t you believe the atheist are wrong holding the view that Jesus never existed? If you do, what got the existence of Jesus got to do with a Muslim – Christian dialogue?Besides I already did do such debates, But I believe there are people more qualified to debate such topics. For example:

Gary Habermas: historical Jesus and resurrection

Dr White: Showed Ehrmans inconsistency and false presuppositions during his debate with him on the textual credibility of the Holy Bible.

But stop pointing the finger to other debaters. You wanted to be a apologist right? If so, you need to step to true scholarship and stop using tainted arguments.

Etheshaam said: My point is not winning or losing against Richard Carrier or others its merely having the courage to do a debate. Okay, I clearly lost the debate against Mr.Wood but does not mean Islam is invaild? Absoultely not-- it just means that I didn't have much experience in doing debates.

Rafael says:Again, you losing got nothing to do with poor debating skills or lack of experience. It has to do with the unhistorical view you hold during the debate.

Set up any debate topic relating to any of the alleged evidence for Christianity. Again, If you provide one good piece of evidence for Christianity (which I highly doubt you'll be able to do) but by some miracle if you do so, I will convert to Christianity, close down my site and become a Christian and will use my spare time and money refuting Muslim Apologists. I'll be waiting.

Rafael said:First of all I am not from the US but from Europe. But if you are as sure about you view why don’t debate me on the topic : the Qurán versus The Holy Bible: Which is more probable to be the word of GOD?

Now its your Time to shine.. either put up or sh…. Up is as the saying going

Thanks for your reply.<When I referred to the glorified flesh of Jesus, I wasn't referring to worshipping His flesh, I was referring to the fact that it is raised up in power and glory as per 1 Corinthians 15:43. That's all I intended to put across.>

==> So, is Jesus, The Word of God + His glorified flesh? Need to know.

==> If YES, then who is our object of worship, Jesus as the Word of God only@ The DIVINE Jesus or BOTH.

"==> So, is Jesus, The Word of God + His glorified flesh? Need to know."

That sounds a little awkward to me. I would just say He was, is, and ever shall be the Word of God, and He has glorified flesh. It sounds strange to say Jesus is His glorified flesh rather than He has glorified flesh. At least to me anyways.

You asked:

"==> If YES, then who is our object of worship, Jesus as the Word of God only@ The DIVINE Jesus or BOTH."

My response:

Well Jesus is the God-man. He is Human, and Divine and we worship Him.

You asked:

"==> If NO, we only worship the pre incarnate Jesus. Its biblical?"

My response:

No I wouldn't say we only worship the pre-incarnate Jesus. God is the same today, yesterday, and forever. He was God prior to the incarnation. He was God while walking on the earth as a man, and He is still God following His resurrection.

You said:

"I apologize if I am demanding too much from you. God bless."

Please, don't apologize. It's very good to talk these things out. I could be very wrong about these things, and am only answering according to my very limited understanding.

The way I see it is this:

When Jesus walked upon the earth, He was God manifest in the flesh, right? He had two natures then: human and Divine. Were someone to have taken a lock of His hair, and began worshipping it, I would think such a thing would be idolatorous. That flesh was created, it was not God.

Now, when we look at the flesh Jesus had following His resurrection, which was the same flesh taken into glory, that flesh was also created flesh it was not uncreated. I do not believe that it is the same as what Abraham saw.

There is a difference between the appearance of flesh, which we have in the Theophenes of the Old Testament, and actual physical flesh that Christ took upon Himself in the New Testament (John 1:14).

I am getting the impression that you believe that these are in fact the same thing. If that is the case, it appears that you believe that Jesus has eternally existed in 2 natures, whereas I believe that the human nature was put on at the point of time of the incarnation.

In short, I would say that I worship the God-man who is both human and divine. Perhaps because I worship the person who now has these two natures, it may seem consequential that I am "worshipping flesh". Is that what you mean?

In any case, I am not a student of theology, and it may be better to ask Nabeel about his opinion on the matter since he brought it up in the debate. He is light years ahead of me in biblical knowledge.

After reading your replies, you and Nabeel in agreement but I have some reservation. I worship Jesus, The Word of God, The Divine. I don't worship His glorify flesh simple because that flesh was added@ created. Worshiping a creation is not biblical because a creation@ created things is always inffable, not eternal, & can be an object of worship. This is against God nature. God cannot in contras with His nature, person and attribute. NO.

That why, the incarnate Word is 1 PERSON (JESUS) with 2 NATURE, DIVINE & HUMAN while on earth. They don't mix. When Jesus die on the cross, it was his human body that die. God cannot die. Its against God nature to die. So, careful not to mix with The Divine & the flesh.

After the resurrection, flesh was no more.

It is His DIVINE body that receive GLORIFICATION. Why, because of 'kenosis', 33 and a half years He was in the flesh, without glory. After He completed His mission to lay that body, Do you thing He need that body again.

After resurrection, Jesus became a Spirit being, His pre-incarnate. When He appear to His diciple, it is like He appear to Abraham, theophany.

Correct me if I am wrong.

May the Lord gives us wisdom to know Him.

In short, I would say that I worship the God-man who is both human and divine

Anda nulis:Cosmic Boy - you said"After the resurrection, flesh was no more."

I would be interested to know what you believe regarding Luke 24:39.

==> You also need to read Luke 24:44-49 especially verse 46. Thats the reason why Jesus showing His resurrected flesh, to prove that He was resurrected. How to prove that if you are a Spirit. Definely you have to show a body!

==> Luke 24:39 did not mention glorify body. Thats not glorify body, He is the Jesus in the flesh, The diciples knews Him. He have hands, legs, body, etc like us. So, I think that body is just a prove that He was resurrrected. He used it temporary. Then He disposed it, no more. He did not bring that flesh to heaven and make that body a part of Himself!

Ypu wrote:I do not believe that Jesus destroyed His old body and took a new one. I believe He truly resurrected bodily.

==> Contrary, I believe that He disposed His old flesh. Glorify body YES, but what does it mean. It mean that He took back after the 'kenosis". "Kenosis" mean empty Himself, HIs what, NOT HIS ESSENCE BUT HIS GLORY. YES, FOR A WHILE ONLY UNTIL HE SURRENDER HIS PERFECT BODY AS A SCRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER TO SATISFIES GOD THE FATHER RIGHTEOUS! Why He need that body? Why God the Creator need a creation body as part of HImself forever!

You wrote:In short, I would say that I worship the God-man who is both human and divine

==> This quote was from your posting. I forget to delete it. That is not my believe.

On the contrary:

I worship One Being God in the PERSONS of The Father, The Son/His Word & The Holy Spirit/His Spirit, before & forever.

I worship Jesus, His DIVINE NATURE. BEFORE, AFTER & FOREVER.

"Jesus is THE SAME yesterday, today & tomorrow"

What is "THE SAME" ==> HIS NATURE because yesterday, that is the pre incarnate Jesus was DIVINE, today, that is, the incarnate Jesus was DIVINE even He add a human body ( without mixing) and tomorrow, that is after His resurrection, He is DIVINE. That is to show that Jesus NEVER CHANGE, YES, His NATURE NIVER CHANGE NEVER MIX. yesterday, 2day & 2morrow.

CosmicBoy... juste wondering: are you jehowas witnesse? I do believe that they believe thate Jesus ressurrected only spiritauly... butt they do not believe thate Jesus had two natures...

never the lesse Col 2:9, who's speaking off the reisen lord, says clearly that "In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness"... God does not had a body priour to the incarnation (a bodie is always a created thing...)... after itt the second person off the Divine Trinity had a spiritual bodie, and this one is not a body made of spirit, butt rather a body where the created dimension off it is tottaly orientated to the spiritt... how can there be a glorified bodie withoute a bodie?

please, remebber: priour too the incarnation we hade the Second Person off the Divine Trinity; aftter the incarnation and the upostatic union (personal union) we still habe onlie one person (the same second person of the Divine Trinity) that assumed an human nature thate was made totalie participant in God's nature (being tottalie transparent to the Holie Spirit) in Jesus baptisme and testified as such in the Tabor; being so, after the ressurrection Jesus did nott, I beliebe, left his human nature (bodie and soule... there's nott an human nature withoute these two elementes... I guess...) because it was alreadie totallie and inseperablie assumed bie his divine person...

Being so we already habe the unswer to your question: Why would need God to habe an human «body as part of HImself forever«? To allow us to participate in his nature (2 Peter,1,4), to allow uss, thate will never bee God and will neber leave our body-soul unity behind, to live with him eternelie...

You say «What is "THE SAME" is HIS NATURE»... weel... let's see... after the upostatic union (thate did not produce a mixture off natures...) both divine and human nature are inseperable in thate Same personne without implyiong a change in the Second person of the Divine Trinity or a change in the Divine naturre...

more: we do not habe God and thene we habe three persons; the onlie naturre off God onlie existes in those three personnes (I prefere upostasis since they're nott persons like you and me...);

being so, nothing is added to the nature of God aftere the asumption of the flesh thate was latter made fully transparent to the action of the Holie Spirit in the baptism (neither the divene person, nor the divene nature needed to bee baptized...), neither "something" merely created was introduced in God afterr the ressurrection: it was, I beliebe, a creation (the human nature) tottaly orientated to God...

so: nothing was mixed withe God. The divine nature thate existes int the 3 divine Persones did not experienced a change... whate is the same priour, during and after the incarnation is:

# 1: the divine persons;# 2: the divine nature,

and thate eben when after the upostatic nature the human nature was assumed bie God to:

a) allow that a divine person saved us humanely;b) we mai, in our ressurrection, libe with God with the totality off our humann being...

About teh kenosis... the second person of the Trinitie did not loose his divinity: he rather choose to limite (not a change... it's a divine person acting is human nature humanely... the limitation is in it's actions...) it to libe plenelly as a man (otherwise itt would be a form off docetisme...); after the ressurrection he no longer has to limite himselff to act as a man and he (the second personne) can operate his human nature divinelie...

butt please remind: I'm nott a theologian... I'm so dumb in this thingues... butt I can say thate I only adore someone (a "whom") not something (a "whate") in itself: I adore the Holie Trinity (3 "whoms") thate is God (1 "whate"; bie the waie: this "whate" does nott exist separeted off those 3 "whomes"...)... I justte wrotte this to express mie believes... I will leave the debate now to more knowlegeble persons; being so, I'll writte no more aboutt this subjecte...

"==> You also need to read Luke 24:44-49 especially verse 46. Thats the reason why Jesus showing His resurrected flesh, to prove that He was resurrected. How to prove that if you are a Spirit. Definely you have to show a body!"

My response: Ok, so now you agree that Jesus did resurrect bodily? The reason I brought up 24:39 was because you said after the resurrection the flesh was no more.

Cosmic Boy said:

"==> Luke 24:39 did not mention glorify body. Thats not glorify body, He is the Jesus in the flesh, The diciples knews Him. He have hands, legs, body, etc like us. So, I think that body is just a prove that He was resurrrected. He used it temporary. Then He disposed it, no more. He did not bring that flesh to heaven and make that body a part of Himself!"

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. So you think that Jesus' resurrected body was disposed of. This seems strange to me. Let me enumerate some points to you why I find this to be problematic:

1. The text never says that Jesus disposed of His resurrected Body.

2. If Jesus' resurrected Body was not glorified, it would have seemed more like Jesus escaped death (like the Swoon Theory) rather than passed through it.

3. If Jesus resurrected Body was not glorified, it would not have given much hope for His disciples as what to look forward to on the day of resurrection.

4. Jesus' resurrected body walked through the walls (John 20:19)

5. The bible itself describes the nature of the resurrected body In 1 Corinthians 15:43-44 -

43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Now was Jesus' body raised in power and glory? You seem to be telling me no, it was something that was no longer needed and should have been disposed of. Yet the verse following also says that it is raised a spiritual body. Either Jesus' weak body was raised in glory, power, and made spiritual, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, and was still the same old weak flesh as you seem to be saying and needed to be disposed of, then it seems to contradict these verses.

Cosmic Boy said:

"==> Contrary, I believe that He disposed His old flesh. Glorify body YES, but what does it mean. It mean that He took back after the 'kenosis". "Kenosis" mean empty Himself, HIs what, NOT HIS ESSENCE BUT HIS GLORY. YES, FOR A WHILE ONLY UNTIL HE SURRENDER HIS PERFECT BODY AS A SCRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER TO SATISFIES GOD THE FATHER RIGHTEOUS! Why He need that body? Why God the Creator need a creation body as part of HImself forever!"

The problem here is that you are saying that He disposed of His resurrected Body. What I am saying is that the scripture describes the resurrected body as being in glory, power and spiritual. If the resurrected body is not these things then the scripture is wrong. I think the problem you are having here is that you are interpreting 1 Cor 15:44-45 to mean "Those who are resurrected will receive a spiritual, glorious, powerful body" - the text doesn't say that. The text describes the resurrected body itself, the body that has passed through death and resurrection. That body is made glorious, powerful and spiritual. This is why Jesus walked through the walls.

You talked about Jesus offering a perfect Body to the Father as a sacrifice. The problem with that, is that according to your theology, that body was not one which bore the sins of mankind upon the cross.

Another few points I wish to make:

1. If the corpse had been left behind, Christianity would never have spread.

2. Following this thought, it seems would seem according to your theology, that we Christians will basically go through this process ->

1. live on earth2. die3. resurrect 4. our bodies will die again as we receive a new body.

I think this is getting more and more confusing, and going away from what Scripture teaches.

sorrie... I saide: «God does not had a body priour to the incarnation (a bodie is always a created thing...)... after itt the second person off the Divine Trinity had a spiritual bodie»... I meant: «God does not had a body priour to the incarnation (a bodie is always a created thing...)... after the ressurrection the second person off the Divine Trinity had a spiritual bodie»... obviouslie...

==> No, Im not. I am an evengelical Christian. I earn my Master in Thelogical Studies 5 years ago and I am interested in Islam-Christian debate. I live in Moslem land. Books are very rare and internet is very important. Knowing Jesus is very important for my debate/discussion.

CosmicBoy... maie God bless you in youre (and your family) life and liffe...

Please remeber: Lk 1:32-33 («He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David, he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end») which is quoting Is. 9:6 («to extend his dominion in boundless peace, over the throne of David and over his kingdom to make it secure and sustain it in fair judgement and integrity. From this time onwards and for ever, the jealous love of Yahweh Sabaoth will do this») and Dn 7:14 («On him was conferred rule, honour and kingship, and all peoples, nations and languages became his servants. His rule is an everlasting rule which will never pass away, and his kingship will never come to an end»), clearlie speakking of the humane nature (in its integrettie... bodie ans soul obvioulie...) of the Messiah, states that this one will never desapear... Jesus humanity is nott an instrumentall realitty that can be disposed... the glorified bodie off Jesus is the mattrix off possibilitie off our own ressurrection into God; this is, into the life off God...

butt also remember that the philosophique notions off God muste be "baptized" whenn dealling withe the biblical God... to philosophy, God is the "Being", to the Holie Bible God is also the "Being", butt this "Being" is Love (1Jn 4:8.16... priour it's saide thate He's light, butt "light" means "infinity"... thus God is is infinite Love)... whate is unchangeble is Love: his love is, was, and will allwaies be the same...

Sorrie for this poste... I saiede I would nott due itt, butt I felt I needed... God blees...

p.s.: you may also find interesting Karl ahner's text "The Eternal Significance of the Humanity of Jesus for our Relationship to God" in Theological Investigations 3; he's the greatest catholique theologian off the XX centurie...

The problem, then, is nott the bodie (thate is onlie an expression of the nature... being the soul the other one... exteriority and interioritie...) butt rather the humanitie... Am I right?

Let's see... let's trie to change the theological paradigm (this is a trie... juste a trie...)

The humanity of the Verb is a qualified humanity: equal to ours but totallie transparent to the action off the Holy Spirit... And since the human nature (in it's perfect expression... not in ours decained condition... Jesus was equal to us in everything except in his "amen" to sin... Hb 4:15) is whate God is whenn he gives himselff totalie to his creation, it (the human nature) is nott a surplus in God, rather an expression of God's true natture... the humanity off Jesus is an transparent expression of the nature off God...

in sinthesis: the humanity off Christ is nott a simple creature as the others (non-eternal), rather the expression off the eternal divine nature of God in a creature...

that's whie, as I saide, we are God's image and likeness: because the perfect humanity (Jesus' humanity) is the image, the icone, the manidestation off whate God 's eternalie...

in other wordes: the incarnation is more the expression off God's true nature in the creation thann a simple aquisition off anything created... so, when Jesus human nature whent too God (and itt did) itt did not mixed anything with God...

iff the humanity off Jesus is an expression of the nature off God, the glorified humanity off Jesus (when he ressurrected) is not a surplus in God... rather the glorification of the manifestation (with no change or adition...) off God's nature...

butt I beliebe you might ask: do we adore this glorified maniffestation? Since it is the expression of God's nature assumed bie the Logos, yes I do... And that's eben whie the incarnated human nature off Jesus in itself is not a "STOP" signal to his adoration...

So: I still do not adore anything than the Eternal Trinity: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit... nothing else... the humanity off Christ is nott a simple creature as the others (non-eternal), rather the expression off the eternal divine nature of God in a creature... that's whie, as I saide, we are God's image and likeness: because the perfect humanity (Jesus' humanity) is the image, the icone, the manidestation off whate God 's eternalie...

Another Book thate explaines your doubtes: Gerald O'Collins' "The Incarnation"... butt remembber: iff the humanity off the Verb is nott with God we'll never be hable to libe eternally with himm... eternety is nott "a lott of time" rather "out off time"...

Nabeel,I know this comment is almost a year late however I thoruoghly enjoyed this debate with Farhan.You are truly an individuall who is on fire with the holy spirit. God bless you.Farhan is truly a sincere person as well, however he like all Muslims is still limited to thinking within the box. The fact of the matter is the day any Muslim steps out of this box and starts questioning the Koran, that is the day they will begin to doubt its divine authorship.

I like to mention one point that came to my mind in this debate, when I heard Farhan consistantly inquire what exactly do Christians worship, when they say they worship Jesus. Is it his finite body or the infinite spirit?

To this a thought immediately came to my mind, correct me if I am wrong please.How did the jews worship YHWH for ages before the first century destruction of the temple in Jerusalem? Did they not turn in prayer to this temple of YHWH in Jerusalem? In fact Muslims the world over bow down five times a day before a similar temple - the kaaba, the alledged house of Allah. Do they not believe that Allah endwells within its walls?

In doing so were the Jews worshiping the structure or the sanctury? were they worshiping the holy of holies? Ofcourse not. Similarly are Muslims worshiping the black cubed structure when they turn in prayer to Mecca? How then can Farhan question the integrity of Christian worship of the one and only God that infact endwelled within Jesus Christ? Jesus infact called himself the temple when he said in John 2:19Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”So in actuality Christians worship God in a living temple - Jesus Christ, as opposed to a lifeless structure that is one built by human hands that the Muslims do.

Farhan with respect to your knowledge you don't have the right tools to debate. Christians know there book was change many many times not according to me nor to the Muslim, according to Christians their book was changed many times in the past 2000 years to fit their need. If the book have many contredictions what do you call that? God made the mistakes?! The main subject is the writter of the book are they Godely? Why Jesus have the same power that Horus had 2000 years before Jesus? What a joke when people claim the book is from God for many many years then a groupe comes hundreds of years later to throw away 7 books of the original Bible, I wonder who gave the authority to change what was in the original Book and trash 7 books & they claim after that this's the book of God. If the book was changed then the whole book is not from God. I will give you an example from your own book. Jeremiah 8:8 confirm that your book was changed & tambered with from your own scribs.

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!